Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> writes:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:48:35 +0200, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
>>> In most cases, I'm tempted to say "is an error; the
>>> xml-stylesheet processor MAY ignore the entire PI; if
>>> it tries to recover, it SHOULD xxxx." Thoughts?
>>
>> I would prefer if for different errors it was either "is an error: MUST
>> ignore the entire PI" or "is an error: MUST recover as follows: xxxx".
>
> My preference for which of those to follow for different errors are as
> follows:
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:38:22 +0100, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> * What happens when the PI is XML 1.0-well-formed but doesn't follow the
>> xml-stylesheet syntax?
>
>> * What happens when there are duplicate pseudo-attributes? (This seems
>> to actually be allowed in the syntax.)
>>
>> * What happens when a CharRef hits the [WFC: Legal Character] constraint
>> in XML 1.0? (Unclear to me whether this is allowed in the syntax.)
>
> Syntax error: must ignore the entire PI. We should tighten up the syntax
> so that duplicate pseudo-attributes and NCRs that are syntax errors in XML
> 1.0 are also syntax errors in xml-stylesheet.
I'd be inclined to make duplicat pseud-atts an error with
recovery=MUST use the last value specified rather than ignoring the
whole thing.
>> * What happens when there are unknown pseudo-attributes?
>
> Must recover by ignoring unknown pseudo-attributes.
Seems reasonable.
>> * What happens when there are unknown values?
>
>> * Browsers support type="text/xsl" but text/xsl is not a registered
>> media type and is not an XML media type per RFC 3023.
>
>> * media='' references HTML4 which is outdated; browsers use the Media
>> Queries spec here.
>
> Invalid value for 'alternate': must recover by acting as if the value was
> 'no'.
Ok.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | A man's dying is more the survivors'
http://nwalsh.com/ | affair than his own.--Thomas Mann